Last week, following Apple's blockbuster earnings report, the company held an internal town hall meeting with employees to discuss "exciting new things". While one piece of information about new employee hardware discounts did surface, little else from that meeting has made its way off of Apple's campus.

The Verge now reports that it has been hearing that discussion of the company's philanthropic efforts was a notable focus of the event, with Tim Cook spending "quite a bit of time" talking about the company's work in that area. One of Cook's first visible actions as CEO was to institute a charitable matching program for employees under which the company would match donations up to $10,000 per employee per year, a move that marked a distinct departure for Apple following the Steve Jobs era. That program resulted in $2.6 million in donations in its first two months of existence.

According to The Verge, Cook disclosed at the town hall meeting that Apple has also given $50 million to Stanford University's hospitals, divided equally among projects for a new main hospital and new children's hospital. Apple's involvement in Stanford's philanthropic efforts for the hospitals was announced last year as part of a consortium also involving eBay, HP, Intel, Intuit and Oracle, but Apple's specific monetary commitment to the effort had not been revealed.

Quote:

Apple CEO Tim Cook held a town hall meeting last week to celebrate Apple's record quarter, and in addition to giving employees deep discounts on Apple products, we're now hearing that he spent quite a bit of time focusing on Apple's charitable contributions. According to our sources, Cook said that Apple has donated a total of $50 million to Stanford's hospitals, split into $25 million for a new main building and $25 million for a new children's hospital.

Cook also reportedly addressed Apple's work with (Product) RED, the Bono-led effort to fight AIDS, with Cook noting that the company has given over $50 million to the project through its special (Product) RED-branded iPods and accessories. Bono had previously cited Apple's involvement in (Product) RED in rebuffing criticism of Jobs regarding his lack of public philanthropy.

For some reason I get bad vibes about this. I doubt this sort of thing would have happened under Jobs, but it's not Jobs' Apple anymore, and this might be good for the company going forward now that their massive cash stash is such a matter of public discussion.

Is there media/consumer pressure for Apple to *be* more charitable? If so, is Apple wise to bow to it?

For some reason I get bad vibes about this. I doubt this sort of thing would have happened under Jobs, but it's not Jobs' Apple anymore, and this might be good for the company going forward now that their massive cash stash is such a matter of public discussion.

Is there media/consumer pressure for Apple to *be* more charitable? If so, is Apple wise to bow to it?

It's nice to see, and I like to think it isn't just a public relations stunt, but rather that Cook is actually concerned with charity.

I did not invest in a charitable foundation. Show me how this increases profits for myself and the other owners of Apple and we'll let you stay Tim. But the charitable announcement have far outnumbered the charitable announcements.

For some reason I get bad vibes about this. I doubt this sort of thing would have happened under Jobs, but it's not Jobs' Apple anymore, and this might be good for the company going forward now that their massive cash stash is such a matter of public discussion.

Is there media/consumer pressure for Apple to *be* more charitable? If so, is Apple wise to bow to it?

Yeah that is because Jobs was a greedy person and not someone to look up to as a person. Great marketer and visionary but a horrible person.
Jobs also promised that he would bring back the corporate Philanthropy when Apple was doing better. That was a lie and Jobs never kept that promise and for the last 5-6 years of his tenure at Apple there was no excuse for not keeping the promise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thecartoonguy

Now open the gates to allow the flood of those who will say this is not enough

It is a start but Apple is still a long ways to go. Apple has at least made progress to piss poor status. Apple was so bad that it made piss poor look really good so it is a step in the right direction.

For some reason I get bad vibes about this. I doubt this sort of thing would have happened under Jobs, but it's not Jobs' Apple anymore, and this might be good for the company going forward now that their massive cash stash is such a matter of public discussion.

Is there media/consumer pressure for Apple to *be* more charitable? If so, is Apple wise to bow to it?

Come on LTD. Add up the number of Product Red stuff Apple sold and tell me Steve didn't give to charity.

Sorry for the rant, and this is probably going to make a lot of people (statists) mad, but I'm sick of everyone complaining about how Steve Jobs didn't give money to charity. Steve Jobs' positive impact on the lives of countless people is incalculable. Anyone who has ever voluntarily bought an Apple product valued the product more than the money they exchanged for it, meaning they're better off after having made the exchange. Any person who works for Apple is better off because they have judged that working for Apple is better than their next-best work option, even if that option is unemployment.

The ideas that only charitable contributions are to be lauded and that business is a necessary evil are collectivist ideas that have infected our psyche. Business, in order to survive, must make the lives of its customers better. This is what Adam Smith described over two hundred years ago in the Wealth of Nations: people seeking their own self interest make the lives of everyone else better. Thus, in a free market, all businesses in a way ARE philanthropic.

It is only when government has favors to give (tariffs, subsidies, quotas, sweetheart deals, etc) that corruption can exist. Apple never took any government handouts as far as I know, meaning they never used a gun (the government) to compel you or I to do business with or support them, like Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Solyndra, anyone who got bailed out, etc. This obviously applies to Democrats AND Republicans, because both parties are inherently statist and think Government runs your life better than you do.

Yeah that is because Jobs was a greedy person and not someone to look up to as a person. Great marketer and visionary but a horrible person.

So? A lovely disposition and warm generosity didn't create the iPad. Nor did it create billions in cash on hand. Nor did it bring Apple out from the shadows and into the position of the driving force in consumer tech today.

Frankly, I don't give a sweet **** what sort of person Jobs was. He had a JOB to do: great products. From the average consumer's perspective, as long as he didn't cause any harm beyond what usually occurs in corporate cutthroat culture, he can roll around on the ground and do somersaults for all I care. The PRODUCT is what counts. He can save the warm fuzzes for his wife and kids or whatever. And by that point it's none of my business anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Jobs also promised that he would bring back the corporate Philanthropy when Apple was doing better. That was a lie and Jobs never kept that promise and for the last 5-6 years of his tenure at Apple there was no excuse for not keeping the promise.

No one really cared. Consumers especially didn't. We were too busy being interested in Apple'a main focus: products.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

It is a start but Apple is still a long ways to go. Apple has at least made progress to piss poor status. Apple was so bad that it made piss poor look really good so it is a step in the right direction.

What you're talking about isn't Apple's responsibility. It's sheer generosity, and their choice entirely. It's a bonus. Frankly, I'd be a little more put at ease is if this what it usually is - a PR move - rather than something that will cut into other priorities.

It's nice to see, but it doesn't get quality product into our hands any faster.

I did not invest in a charitable foundation. Show me how this increases profits for myself and the other owners of Apple and we'll let you stay Tim.

Keep in mind that the state of California, where Apple resides, is using legislation to promote benefit corporations, which need not prioritize shareholder financial interests over the interests of workers, communities, and the environment. A number of states have enacted such laws.

__________________Oh do pay attention 007. In the wrong hands, this cylindrical 12-core Mac Pro with three 4K displays, FirePro graphics, and Thunderbolt 2 could be very dangerous.

I did not invest in a charitable foundation. Show me how this increases profits for myself and the other owners of Apple and we'll let you stay Tim.

A huge portion of Apple's value is within the skill of their employee's.

Charitable giving increases shareholder value by helping hire and retain talented employees who like working for a corporation that more closely reflects their charitable interests.

Being known as a good corporate citizen also can make it easier to deal with various local government authorities and voters when issues that affect the company come up (zoning, transportation improvements, etc.) Bribing the mayor is illegal, just happening to donate to his/her favorite local charity...

Not to criticize this effort, but there are other places in need of philanthropy far more than Stanford.

When you do as much as Stanford, Apple, or these other "more in need" entities then you can decide how others should spend their money. Oh wait, you can't. Eyes on your OWN paper, class.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Yeah that is because Jobs was a greedy person and not someone to look up to as a person. Great marketer and visionary but a horrible person.
Jobs also promised that he would bring back the corporate Philanthropy when Apple was doing better. That was a lie and Jobs never kept that promise and for the last 5-6 years of his tenure at Apple there was no excuse for not keeping the promise.

It is a start but Apple is still a long ways to go. Apple has at least made progress to piss poor status. Apple was so bad that it made piss poor look really good so it is a step in the right direction.

Liar. Project red was in place LONG before Steve even got sick. Unlike Meg Whitman and other such trash, Steve didn't feel the need to have his name on buildings and plaques to say "Look at how great I am to the serfs!". Therefore, you know absolutly NOTHING about what he gave and where.

Unlike Meg Whitman and other such trash, Steve didn't feel the need to have his name on buildings and plaques to say "Look at how great I am to the serfs!". Therefore, you know absolutly NOTHING about what he gave and where.

This is one of the things I find most amazing in USA culture...

People follow the rich and powerful in their bid to reduce taxes for the 1%, thinking that in exchange they will create more jobs in the USA (not going to happen a lot since it makes no business sense) and then participate in charity (that they receive tax breaks for besides the fact that they chose where the money goes) like benevolent kings.

I cannot fathom why people don't understand that they are the serfs of the story.
Taxes aren't some evil plot against the citizen of a country, it's a way for everybody to participate, according to their capacities, to the development of said country in order to maintain a level of society that would allow anybody to strive (to his capacity).

Jobs also promised that he would bring back the corporate Philanthropy when Apple was doing better. That was a lie and Jobs never kept that promise and for the last 5-6 years of his tenure at Apple there was no excuse for not keeping the promise.

And corporate philanthropy was brought back when Apple was doing better. How was that a lie?

People follow the rich and powerful in their bid to reduce taxes for the 1%, thinking that in exchange they will create more jobs in the USA (not going to happen a lot since it makes no business sense) and then participate in charity (that they receive tax breaks for besides the fact that they chose where the money goes) like benevolent kings.

I cannot fathom why people don't understand that they are the serfs of the story.
Taxes aren't some evil plot against the citizen of a country, it's a way for everybody to participate, according to their capacities, to the development of said country in order to maintain a level of society that would allow anybody to strive (to his capacity).

In Whitman's case, it helped bury rape charges against her son. The other son also assaulted a professor who wanted to use a field he had properly reserved. Classy family.

And corporate philanthropy was brought back when Apple was doing better. How was that a lie?

The lie was Jobs was planning on bring it back and SJ never delivered on that promise. Also Apple has been doing great since before 2005 so what is your excuse for failing to keep that promise between 2005 and now.

People follow the rich and powerful in their bid to reduce taxes for the 1%, thinking that in exchange they will create more jobs in the USA (not going to happen a lot since it makes no business sense) and then participate in charity (that they receive tax breaks for besides the fact that they chose where the money goes) like benevolent kings.

I cannot fathom why people don't understand that they are the serfs of the story.
Taxes aren't some evil plot against the citizen of a country, it's a way for everybody to participate, according to their capacities, to the development of said country in order to maintain a level of society that would allow anybody to strive (to his capacity).

The median income for the world is currently about $2000 per year; average income is about $7000 per year. If wealth redistribution were necessary, why woud it take money from really rich Americans, and transfer it to other slightly less rich Americans? Objectively speaking, many people in the United States, who are not among the highest earners, understand that they live a rather luxurious lifestyle, from the global perspective, despite the fact that they are not among the nation's top earners. They also understand that, if carried through to its logical conclusion, the wealth redistribution scam doesn't really leave them with a heck of a lot left over afterwards.

That, plus, is it really that hard to understand not wishing to put a nominal price on freedom?

Even if the same marginal income tax rate (say 20 %) were to apply to someone making $2 million per year and to someone making $20,000 per year, the person making $2 million per year would still be paying 100 x more income tax than the person making $20,000 per year. Does the person making $2 million per year consume 100 x as more government resources as the person making $20,000 per year? No.

An equitable income taxation scheme would be to charge everyone approximately $10,000 per head (approximate US budget divided by population). A flat tax of 20% of income across the board is already very generous taxation scheme that redistributes a lot of wealth.